UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : ex rel. LORI MORSELL, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 12-800 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 280, 283 : NORTONLIFELOCK, INC. : (f/k/a SYMANTEC CORPORATION), : : Defendant. : MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE UNITED STATES’ MOTION IN LIMINE; DENYING NORTON’S CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This case concerns the Federal Government’s Federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) claims, and the related state claims of California, Florida, and Relator Morsell on behalf of New York against Defendant NortonLifeLock Incorporated (“Norton”). 1 A bench trial before this Court is currently scheduled to begin February 28, 2022. See Min. Order of Oct. 7, 2021. The pending cross-motions seek to exclude certain demonstrative exhibits and to modify the pretrial scheduling order with respect to demonstrative exhibits. See United States’ Mot. in Limine to Exclude Certain Demonstrative Exs. Identified by Norton (“Gov’t Mot.”), ECF No. 280; Norton’s Mem. P. & A. Opp’n United States’ Mot. in Limine & Supp. Cross Mot. to Modify Scheduling Order (“Norton Mot.”), ECF No. 283-1. The United States filed a consolidated 1 The Court stated in its opinion regarding motions for summary judgment that it would refer to the company previously known as Symantec Corporation by its new name going forward. United States ex rel. Morsell v. Symantec Corp., 471 F. Supp. 3d 257, 266 n.1 (D.D.C. 2020). However, the Court has not replaced instances of “Symantec” in quotations. Reply and Opposition, see United States’ Reply in Supp. Mot. in Limine to Exclude Certain New Demonstrative Exs. & Opp’n Norton’s Cross-Mot. to Revise Court-Ordered Schedule after the Fact (“Gov’t Reply & Opp’n”), ECF Nos. 287–88, and Norton filed a reply, see Def. NortonLifeLock Inc.’s Reply in Supp. Cross-Mot. to Revise Demonstrative Schedule (“Norton Reply”), ECF No. 289. For the reasons explained herein, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Government’s motion in limine and deny Norton’s Cross-Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order. II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The full background of this case has been laid out in previous opinions. See United States ex rel. Morsell v. Symantec Corp., 471 F. Supp. 3d 257, 267–76 (D.D.C. 2020); United States ex rel. Morsell v. Symantec Corp., No. 12-cv-800, 2020 WL 1508904, at *1–3 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2020); United States ex rel. Morsell v. NortonLifeLock, Inc., No. 12-cv-800, 2021 WL 3363446, at *1–2 (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2021). To briefly summarize, the Government and the States claim that Norton violated the FCA, common law, state false claims acts, and state contract law when, “in the process of setting pre-negotiated maximum prices for government purchasers with the General Services Administration, Symantec overcharged them by misrepresenting the existence of certain prices and discounts that were available to Symantec’s private customers and by consequently failing to offer government purchasers the same low prices these customers received.” Morsell, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 267. Norton was “required …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals